2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 10-7-2010 

# Ind M arit ime C arrie rs B ah am a s v . Thom a s Mi lle r Ame r P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 10-1232

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" Ind M arit ime C arrie r s B ah am as v . Thom as Mi lle r Ame r " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 472. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/472NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_____________ N o. 10- 1232

_____________ I NDU S TRI AL M ARI TI M E CARR I ERS (B A H A M A S ), I N C ., a n d IN T E R M A R IN E IN C ., A pp el l ants ,

v. T H O M A S M IL L E R (A M E R IC A S ) I N C .; T H O M A S M IL L E R (M IA M I) , IN C .,

______________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . N o. 06- cv- 5625) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n . Jo sep h A . G ree n aw ay , Jr.

_______________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

O ct ober6, 2010 B e f o re : F U E N T E S , J O R D A N a n d A L D IS E R T , C i r cui tJudges
.

( Fi l ed: O ct ober7, 2010)

_______________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_______________F o r sim p licity ’s s a k e a n d e x c e p t w h e re c o n tex t d icta tes o th e rw ise , ref e re n c e s to 1
“ IM B ” th ro u g h o u t th is o p in io n a re m e a n t to in c lu d e b o th IM B a n d In te rm a ri n e . F o r sim p licity ’s s a k e a n d e x c e p t w h e re c o n tex t d icta tes o th e rw ise , ref e re n c e s to 2
“ T M M ” th ro u g h o u t th is o p in io n a re m e a n t to in c lu d e b o th T M M a n d T M A . 2 J O R D A N , C i r cui tJudge
. In d u stria l M a ritim e C a rrie rs ( B a h a m a s), In c . (“I M B ” ) a n d its m a n a g in g a g e n t, I nt erm ar i ne, I nc. ( “I nt erm ar i ne”) appea l an or derfr om the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tfor the D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s eygr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof Thom as M i l l er ( Ame r i c a s ) , I n c . ( “ TM A” ) a n d Th o ma s M i l l e r( M i a mi ) , I n c . ( “ TM M ” ) o n I M B’ s c l a i ms 1
a g a i n s tT M M f

o rn e g l i g e n c e a n d b r e a c h o f f i d u c i a ryd u ty . F o rth e r e a s o n s th a tf o l l o w, 2
w e w ill a f

f ir m . I . Backg r ound B eca us e w e w r i t e s ol el yforthe part i es , w ho ar e w el l acqua i nt ed w i th the l engthy
a n d c o m p lex f

a c tu a l h isto ryo f

th is c a se , w e w ill d isc u ss o n lyth o se f a c ts n e c e ss a ryto addr es s the ar gum ent s r ai s ed on appe al
. A tal l m at er i al t i m es , I M B w as a B ahami an corpor at i on w i th an off i ce i n N ew O r l eans , L oui s i ana, and w as an oper at orof oce an ca r go
v e s s e ls . In te rm a ri n e w a s a L o u is ia n a c o rp o ra tio n a n d a c te d a s IM B ’s m a n a g in g a g e n t. T M A w as a N ew J er s eycorpor at i on and a c orr es pondentof Thom as M i l l er( B erm uda) L t d. ( “TM B ”) , w hi ch managed the U ni t ed K i ngdom M utual St eam Shi p A s s ur ance A s s oci at i on ( B erm uda) L i m i t ed ( “the U K C l ub”) , a non- pr ofi tm ar i ne mut ual pr ot ect i on3

and i ndemni tyas s oci at i on ( a “P& I cl ub”)
. T M M w as a Fl or i da corpor at i on w i th i t s offi ce in M ia m i a n d a c o rr e s p o n d e n t o f T M A . I M B i ni t i at ed thi s l aw s ui tal l egi ng thatT M M br eac hed a dutyt o not i fyi tof a l aw s ui tpendi ng agai ns tI M B i n T ur keyi nvol vi ng I M B ’ s al l eged mi s del i veryof ca r go a b o a rd a v e ss e l k n o w n a s th e M /V A m d e rm a (“ A m d e rm a ” ). IM B c laim s th a t, as a re su lt of TM M ’ s purpor t ed br eac h of i t s dutyt o not i fyI M B of the Turki s h l aw s ui t , I M B w as unabl e t o part i ci pat e i n i t s ow n defe ns e, w hi ch ul t i m at el yl ed t o an adve r s e j udgm ent
a g a in s t it in T u rk e y . A . FactualHistory O n J une 2, 1997, I M B ent er ed i nt o a contr actof ca rr i age w i th C entr ans In ter n a tio n a l C o rp o ra tio n (“ C e n tra n s” ), as a g e n t f o r D a e w o o C o rp o ra tio n , to tra n sp o rt a
c a rg o o f c o n stru c tio n e q u ip m e n t f ro m K o re a to T u rk e ya b o a rd a v e ss e l k n o w n a s th e M /V I ndus tr i al B r i dge ( “I ndus tr i al B r i dge”) , w hi ch I M B chart er ed fr om i t s aff i l i at e B r i dge S h ip p in g , In c . O n Ju ly3 , 1 9 9 7 , IM B e n ter e d in to a se c o n d c o n tra c t o f c a rria g e w ith C entr ans , as agentof D aew oo, t o carryan addi t i onal car go of cons truct i on equi pm ent betw een the s ame t w o por t s , thi s t i m e aboa r d the A m derm a, w hi ch I M B chart er ed fr om F a r E a s te rn S h ip p in g C o m p a n y(“ F E S C O ” ). I M B appoi nt ed B arw i l U ni ver s al D eni zci l i k ve Tasi m aci l i k ( “B arw i l ”) as i t s agent i n T ur keyforboth t he I ndus tr i al B r i dge and the A m derm a. I M B al s o obt ai ned i ns ur ance form i s del i verycl ai m s i n connec t i on w i th car go s hi pped aboa r d both the A m derm a andU nderT ur ki s h l aw , a paym entor deri s a demand forpaym ent . I thas no eff ecti f the 3 r es pondentfi l es an obj ect i on w i thi n s even da y s , exce ptthati tt ol l s the s t atut e of lim itatio n s a n d th e c laim a n t m a yre c o v e r c e rta in c o sts if th e o b jec tio n s w e re w ro n g f

u lly f ile d . T h e c la im a n t th e n h a s o n e y e a r w ith in w h ic h to f ile s u it. 4 th e In d u stria l B rid g e w ith in su re rs a t L lo y d ’s o f L o n d o n u n d e r a S h ip O w n e r’s L iab ili ty (“S O L ”) p o li cy . W ith resp ec t t o m arine insu ran ce an d ind em n ityco v era g e, ho w ev er, I M B i ns ur ed the I ndus tr i al B r i dge and the A m derm a byent er i ng the ves s el s i nt o di ffe r ent P & I club s. T h e In d u str ial B ri d g e w as e n tered into the G erm an P & I club T ram p fa h rt B etr i ebs
- R i s i ko- V er s i chertung furSeefr acht s chi ffe a. G . ( “Tra m pfahrt ”) , w hi l e the A m d e rm a w a s e n te re d in to th e U K C lu b
. T he Indu stri al B ri dg e and the A m derm a arr i ved i n T urkeyi n Julyand A ug ust 1997, r es pect i vel y . Pur s uantt o I M B ’ s under s t andi ng of ea r l i eri ns truct i ons i tr ece i ved fr om C entr ans , I M B i ns truct ed B arw i l t o r el eas e the ca r goes fr om both s hi ps upon a rriv in g in T u rk e yw ith o u t re q u irin g th e re c e iv e rs o f th e c a rg o to p re se n t th e o rig in a l b ill s of l adi ng. A ccor di ngl y , B arw i l di s char ged the ca r goes i nt o a bonded w ar ehous e under the contr ol of the Turki s h C us t om s A uthor i tyupon arr i vi ng i n T ur key
. I n m i d- M ar ch 1998, the Turki s h C us t om s A uthor i tyappar ent l yr el eas ed the ca r goes thathad bee n a b o a rd th e In d u s tr ia l B ri d g e a n d th e A m d e rm a to a T u rk is h c o rp o ra tio n c a lle d B M G . O n J ul y29, 1998, B arw i l not i fi ed I M B thati thad bee n s erved w i th a “pa ym ent
or der , ” fr om D aew oo, demandi ng compensa t i on forthe al l eged mi s del i veryof ca r go

3
a b o a rd th e In d u stria l B rid g e . T h e p a ym e n t o rd e r w a s a d d re ss e d to B a rw il i n d iv id u a lly
a n d a s a g e n t f

o r th e In d u stria l B rid g e ’s o w n e rs a n d c h a rte re rs. A t th is p o in t, IM B sh o u ld5

have not i fi ed i t s SO L i ns ur er( i
. e. , L l oy d’ s of London) oratl eas tthe P& I cl ub i n w hi ch the I ndus tr i al B r i dge had be en ent er ed ( i
. e. , T r ampfahr t )
. I ns t ead, on J ul y30, 1998, I M B ’ s i n- hous e couns el and cl ai m s m anage r , T hom as Schow ods ki , err oneous l ybel i evi ng thatthe I ndus tr i al B r i dge had be en ent er ed i nt o the U K C l ub, s entT M M a t el efa x not i fy i ng i tof the I ndus tr i al B r i dge paym entor derand r eques t i ng “the U K C l ub’ s ki nd
as s i s t ance i n pr ovi di ng compet entm ar i t i m e l egal defe ns e att orneyt o as s i s touragent [a n d ] . . . resp o n d to the lega l dem an d
. ” (A p p . at 21 3 -14 . ) O n J ul y30, 1998, T M M r es ponded t o I M B ’ s t el efa x advi s i ng that“w e w i l l be pas s i ng thi s t o ourcorr es pondent s forthei rur gentatt ent i on/ comm ent s / act i on i m m e d i a t e l y. W e w i l l k e e p yo u a d v i s e d o f d e v e l o p m e n t s . ” ( A p p . a t7 2 4 . ) L a t e rth a td a y, T M M in stru c ted its c o rre sp o n d e n t in T u rk e y , V itsa n Ista n b u l (“ V itsa n ” ), to in v e stig a te the I ndus tr i al B r i dge paym entor derand, i f nec es s ary , t o appoi nta l aw y eron behal f of IM B to c o n te s t th e p a ym e n t o rd e r. O n J ul y31, 1998, V i t s an i nform ed TM M thatB arw i l had enga ged an a t t orney named T ur gutB as aci k t o obj ectt o the paym entor deron i t s behal f and s ugges t ed that B as aci k al s o be appoi nt ed on beha l f of I M B . T M M then not i fi ed I M B that“B arw i l s [s i c] have a l r eadyappoi nt ed a l ocal l aw y er– T . B as aci k, w ho i s w el l know n t o the
corr es pondent s . W e as s um e thaty ou have no obj ect i on t o hi s appoi nt m enton y our behal f. W e w i l l advi s e V i t s an ac cor di ngl y . ” ( A pp. at736. ) H avi ng hear d no obj ect i on f ro m IM B , T M M a d v ise d V itsa n th a t “[ w ]e w ish to c o n f irm th a t w e h a v e n o o b

jec tio n toW hen B as aci k pas s ed aw ayi n M ay2000, B arw i l i ns truct ed H at em, t o r epr es ent 4 I M B / I nt erm ar i ne’ s i nt er es t s i n t he Turki s h l aw s ui t . D ur i ng hi s depos i t i on, H at em t est i fi ed as fo l l ow s: Q : W e w e re ta lk in g a b o u t w h e n y o u s ta rt e d to re p re s e n t a ll d e f e n d a n ts . W h e n w a s th a t? A : I’ll tell y o u . In f a c t, as I’m tellin g y o u , u n o f f icia lly , n o t u n o f

f icia lly 6 th e a p p o in tm e n t o f

th e law y e r T . B a sa c ik o n b e h a lf o f [ IM B ].” ( A p p . at 7 3 5 .) B a sa c ik
w as then appoi nt ed as couns el on behal f of I M B and made the nec es s aryobj ect i ons t o t he In d u s tr ia l B ri d g e p a ym e n t o rd e r. I n Au g u s t1 9 9 8 , Ba r wi l r e c e i v e d a n o th e rp a yme n to r d e rf r o m Da e wo o , th i s t i me d e m a n d in g p a ym e n t f

o r th e a lleg e d m isd e liv e ryo f c a rg o a b o a rd th e A m d e rm a . B a rw il f o rw a rd e d th e A m d e rm a p a ym e n t o rd e r d ire c tlyto B a sa c ik , w h o th e n f iled a tim e ly
o b je c tio n . O n O ct ober13, 1998, D aew oo fi l ed s ui ti n T ur ki s h courtforthe al l eged
m isd e liv e ryo f

c a rg o e s a b o a rd th e In d u stria l B rid g e a n d th e A m d e rm a . T h e law su it named as defe ndant s B arw i l and the ow ner s , chart er er s , capt ai ns , and oper at or s of the Indust ri al B ri dg e and the A m derm a. A l so i n O ct ob er 1998 , B arw i l ’s “E rr ors & O m iss io n s” in su re r e n g a g e d a n a tto rn e yn a m e d Iz z e t J. H a tem to re p re se n t B a rw il i n connec t i on w i th t he I ndus tr i al B r i dge and A m derm a l aw s ui t , w hi l e I M B cont i nued t o be
r epr es ent ed byB as aci k. E ven af t erB arw i l r et ai ned s epar at e couns el , how ever , H at em and B as aci k w or ked t ogetherand “pr epar [ed] the def ens e of Bar w i l and of [ I M B ] att he
s a m e tim e jo in tly.” (A p p . a t 2 8 0 .) 4buti n pr act i ce a s w e w er e pr epar i ng the def ens e of Bar w i l and of the com pan i es atthe sam e t i m e j oint l y , I m aysaythat m yw ork w as al so

– m ya c tiv ity w a s a ls o in f a v o r o f th e s e c o m p a n ie s . B u t in 2 0 0 0 , ... M r. B a s a c ik p a s s e d a w a y , d ie d . T h e n ... B arw i l i ns truct ed me and s ai d, “I n anycas e, y ou ar e handl i ng the cas e i n a w ayw hi ch i s al s o s ecur i ng orhel pi ng forthe def ens e of the o th e r d e f e n d a n ts , s o th e re is n o p o in t in a p p o in tin g a n o th e r l a w y e r. P le a s e c o n tin u e to d o s o f o r e v e ryb o d y .” ... Q : R igh t. Y o u said b ef o re M r. B asa cik d ied, y o u w o rke d w ith M r. B asaci k in prepari ng the d efen ses? A : E x a c t l y. Q : C an y ou – I m ean, I t ake i tthen y ou had meet i ngs w i th hi m and di s cus s ed the ca s e w i th hi m – A : Y es. Q :
– an d y o u ag ree d o n w h at de fe n ses w o u ld co m p lem en t eac h o ther? A : Y es, sir
. (A p p . at 28 0 . )
7 O n February24, 1999, T M M l earned thatthe I ndus tr i al B r i dge had notbeen ent er ed i nt o t he U K C l ub. H ow ever , i tw as notunt i l overa y earl at er , on M ar ch 23, 2000, that T M M n o ti fied IM B o f th at fa ct. F u rth er, I M B claim s tha t T M M n ev er n o ti fied IM B
o f th e T u rk is h la w s u it. IM B c laim s th a t itd id n o t lea rn o f th e p e n d in g law su it ag a in st it in T u rk e yu n til late N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 2 , o v e r th re e y e a rs a f ter it l e a rn e d o f

th e f irst p a ym e n t o rd e r in Ju ly8

1998. H ow ever , I M B admi t t edl yr ece i ved a t el efa x fr om B arw i l on February17, 1999
s t at i ng: R ef: M / V I ndus tr i al B r i dge M / V Amd e r ma T h is is to in f

o rm y o u th a t tw o c o u rt c a se s w e re o p e n e d a g a in st B a rw il T ur keyi n I s t anbul byD aew oo and C entr ans K or ea. P lea se a d v ise if

th e re is a n yc o u rt c a se s o p e n e d a g a in st In ter m a rin e In c . in U S A , k i n d l y r e v e r tw i th d a t e , p l a c e o f th e c o u r tc a s e i f

a n y.B arw i l s entfouraddi t i onal t el efa xes r efe r enci ng the Turki s h l aw s ui t , thr ee of w hi ch 5 I M B deni es r ece i vi ng. O n February23, 1999, B arw i l s entI M B a t el efa x r eques t i ng co p ies o f IM B ’s ch arterpa rt ies, w h ich IM B ’s i n -ho u se c o u n sel an d claim s m an ag er, T h o m a s S c h o w o d sk i, de c lin e d to p ro v id e . O n F e b ru a ry2 5 , 1 9 9 9 , B a rw il alle g e d lyse n t a t el efa x t o I M B ’ s D an Y eage r , undera r efe r ence t o M / V A m derm a and M / V I ndus tr i al B r i dge, r efe r r i ng t o Schodow s ki ’ s r efus al t o pr ovi de the cha r t erpart i es , and s t at i ng: W e k ind lyask y o u to ex p lai n the s eriou sity[sic] o f th is m att er to M r. Schodovs ki beca us e thes e tw o cas es ar e al s o opened a gai ns ty ourcompany as w el l as ours i de. Y ou m aycons i dertw o cl ai m s t i m e- barr ed and de ci s i on o f T u rk ish c o u rt m a yb e n o t ap p ly in g in U S b u t y o u r f u tu re sh ip m e n ts to T urkeym aybe in di ffi cult i es. T hi s i s the fi r s tt el efa x t hatI M B deni es r ece i vi ng. O n M ay5, 1999, I nt erm ar i ne r es ponded t o B arw i l ’ s r eques tforthe or i gi nal A m derm a bi l l s of l adi ng forthe D aew oo c a rg o b ysa y in g IM B d id n o t issu e a n yb ill s o f lad in g . O n M a y1 4 , 1 9 9 9 , B a rw il alle g e d ly s entI M B a t el efa x underthe r efe r ence “A M D E R M A V oy . 341, ” r egar di ng the A m derm a’ s bi l l s of l adi ng, s t at i ng: A l s o our/y ourl aw y er s as ki ng foror i gi nal endor s ed B s / L t o pr ove t o the co u rtw h ich y o u stat ed su b m itted to y o u r of fice in K o rea . Itis ve ry im p o rta n t, also f

o r y o u r b e n e f

it, to se n d u s o rig in a ls f o r th e c o u rt. T h is is th e se c o n d tele f

a x th a t IM B d e n ies re c e iv in g . O n S e p tem b e r 2 8 , 2 0 0 0 , B a rw il al l egedl ys enta t el efa x t o I M B , w i th a r efe r ence t o the tw o s hi ps and the C our t ’ s docket num ber s , s t at i ng: P lea se b e in f

o rm e d th a t th e re p o rt p ro d u c e d b yth e p a n e l o f e x p e rts is n e g a t i v e f

r o m a l l d e f

e n d a n t s p o i n to f

v i e w. T h e la w y e rs w ill b e p re p a ri n g a n o b je c tio n to th is re p o rt . Y ou w i l l no do ub tbe inform ed in det ai l thru t he club v i a t he law y ers . T h is is th e th ir d te le f

a x th a t I M B d e n ie s re c e iv in g . 9 (A p p . at 7 6 : ¶ 5 7 ; 2 6 2 -6 3 , 8 8 1 : ¶ 5 7 .) F u rth e r, o n M a rc h 2 4 , 2 0 0 0 , In ter m a rin e se n t it s 5 G erm an P& I cl ub, T r ampfahr t , the fol l ow i ng t el efa x:10 W h e n th is m a tter f

irst c a m e to o u r a tten tio n , T o m S c h o d o w sk i d id notr eal i ze thatthe cove r age f orthi s m att erw oul d fal l t o the Tra m pfahrtand cont act ed the U K P& I C l ub, w ho i ns truct ed thei rcorr es pondenti n T ur key t o l ook i nt o t he mat t er . T he U K C l ub s ubs equent l yl earned thatthe B r i dge h a d n o t en ter e d in th e C lu b a n d a s B a rw il h a d a p p o in ted c o u n se l to re p re se n t th e m th e U K C lu b w ith d re w a n yf u rth e r su p p o rt. T o o u r k n o w led g e th e m a tter is c o n tin u in g to b e h a n d led b yB a rw il a n d we a r e tr y i n g t o l o c a t e th e b a l a n c e o f o u rf i l e o n th i s ma t t e r . On c e we do, w e w i l l pr ovi de addi t i onal i nform at i on t o y ou. T he purpos e of thi s fax i s t o covertw o poi nt s . Fi r s t , the U K C l ub h a s p a ss e d to u s f

o r p a ym e n t th e in v o ice f o r se rv ice s p ro v id e d b yth e ir c o rre sp o n d e n t, V itsa n , in th e a m o u n t o f U S D 1 ,8 7 5 . W e w o u ld a p p re c iate y o u p lac in g th is e x p e n se b e f o re th e T ra m p f

a h rt f o r p a ym e n t. A ttac h e d is s o me o f th e c o r r e s p o n d e n c e a tth e t i me o n th i s ma t t e rf o rth e i rr e v i e w. T h e se c o n d p o in t is w e d o n o t w ish to c o n tac t B a rw il fo r a n u p d a te as w e do notw i s h t o aw aken a s l eepi ng dog; how ever , w e w oul d l i ke the T r ampfahr t ’ s corr es pondenti n T ur keyt o di s cr eet l ychec k outthe s t atus of thi s m att er . ( bycourtr ecor ds orB arw i l ’ s couns el , T ur gutB as aci k, on a non d i s c l o s u r e b a s i s . ) Th e ymi g h twi s h t o a p p o i n tVi t s a n a s th e yh a v e s o me k n o w ledg e o f th e m att er. (A p p . at 27 5 -76 . ) O n M ay27, 2003, appr oxi m at el ys i x m onths aft erI M B cl ai m s t o have l earned of the law sui t , the C om m erci al C ou rtof F i rs tInst ance in T urkeyenter ed judgm ent agai nst I M B w i th r es pectt o t he I ndus tr i al B r i dge and A m derm a l aw s ui t . O n O ct ober16, 2003, I M B appea l ed the j udgm entof the C om m er ci al C our tof Fi r s tI ns t ance t o the C our tof C as s at i on. D ur i ng the pende ncyof the appe al , I M B pos t ed a bond i n the amountof $4. 35
m i l l i on, as r equi r ed bythe l ett erof i ndemni tygi ven t o FE SC O , t o pr events ei zur e of theI M B ’ s compl ai ntdoes notal l ege thatT M M had a dutyt o not i fyI M B of the I ndus tr i al 6 Br i d g e c l a i m. 11 Am d e r ma p u r s u a n tt o a ma r i t i me l i e n p r o v i d e d t o Da e wo o u n d e rT u r k i s h l a w. On O c to b e r 2 7 , 2 0 0 5 , IM B p a id D a e w o o $ 1 .5 5 m illio n to s e ttle th e litig a tio n . B . P rocedu ralHistory O n N o v em b er 2 2 , 2 0 0 6 , IM B fil ed a c o m p lai n t i n the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey , w hi ch w as l at eramended on Sept ember26, 2007, as s er t i ng c l a i ms a g a i n s tTM M f

o rn e g l i g e n c e a n d b r e a c h o f f i d u c i a ryd u ty . I M B a l l e g e d th a tTM M h a d “ th e d u tya n d o b lig a tio n to n o tify[ IM B ] ... o f th e e x iste n c e o f

th e A M D E R M A c laim and l aw s ui ti n a pr om ptand t i m el ym anners o thatan ef fec t i ve def

ens e coul d be pr es ent ed, ” ( A pp. at53) , and thatT M M ’ s fai l ur e t o do s o pr event ed I M B fr om p a rticip a tin g in th e ir o w n d e f e n se a n d u lti m a telyc a u se d th e a d v e rse ju d g m e n t ag a in st it in T urkey
. S pecifi cal l y , IM B al l eged that the att orneyrepr esent i ng i ti n the T urki sh

6 l i t i gati on fai l ed to r ai se cer t ai n p rel i m i narydefe nses on it s behalf and that , had tho se defe ns es been r ai s ed, the cl ai m s agai ns tI M B w oul d have be en di s m i s s ed. O n M ar ch 20, 2009, T M M m oved fors um m aryj udgm ent , ar gui ng thati tdi d nothave a dutyt o not i fy IM B of the A m derm a l aw sui tand that anyi njurythat I M B suffered from the T urki sh l i t i gat i on w as notcaus ed byT M M ’ s fai l ur e t o not i fy
. T he part i es agr eed thatN ew J er s ey s ta te la w g o v e rn e d th e c la im s . I M B s ubm i t t ed a l egal opi ni on fr om a Turki s h l aw expertcl ai m i ng thatthe att o rne y s rep rese n ti n g IM B in the T u rkish law su itfa il ed to raise c ertain p reli m inary12

d e f e n se s o n its b e h a lf

a n d th a t, ha d th o se d e f e n se s b e e n ra ise d , the c laim s a g a in st it w o u ld have be en di s m i s s ed. T M M al s o s ubm i t t ed a l egal opi ni on fr om a Turki s h expert , w ho concl uded that“[t ] he couns el s of the def endant s T ur gutB as i aci k and I zze tH at em su b m itted a ll ap p rop ri ate d ef en ses a n d ev iden ce s in the co u rto f f ir st i n stan ce . M o reo v er, in m yo p in io n e v e n if

a n o th e r c o u n se l w o u ld h a v e re p re se n ted th e d e f e n d a n ts th e re su lt
w o u ld n o t cha n g e, be ca u se th e leg al fa cts w ere clea r. ” (A p p . at 95 0 . ) O n D ece m ber21, 2009, the D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof TM M f o rtwo r e a s o n s . Fi r s t , th e Di s tr i c tCou r th e l d th a tI M B f a i l e d t o s h o w t h a tTM M h a d a d u ty , u n d e rn e g l i g e n c e l a w o ra s a f i d u c i a ryo f

I M B, t o i n f

o r m i to f th e Amd e r ma c laim , sta tin g : [ I M B] h a [ s ] i d e n t i f

i e d n o c o u r s e o f

c o n d u c t , c o n tr a c tu a l p r o v i s i o n , o rUK C l ub rul e, thatw oul d cr eat e s uch an e xpect at i on. [I M B ] al s o do[es ] not as s ertthat[TM M ] [w as ] [I M B ’ s ] agent [] fors ervi ce of pr oces s . T he s t a t e m e n t s f

r o m [ T MM’ s ] m a r k e t i n g m a t e r i a l s d o n o ts u g g e s tth a t[ T MM] w ill n o tifym e m b e rs w h e n e v e r a law su it i s f iled a g a in st th e m a n yw h e re in the w or l d. I ndus
. Mar . C ar r i ers (

B aham as ) , I nc. v. Thom as Mi l l er(

A m er i cas

) , I nc. , 2 0 0 9 WL 5 2 1 6 9 7 1 , at * 6 (D .N .J. D e c . 2 9 , 2 0 0 9 ). S e c o n d , the D istric t C o u rt h e ld th a t “e v e n if [I M B ] coul d es t abl i s h a dutyt o not i fy[I M B ] aboutthe exi s t ence of the l aw s ui t , and br eac h of thatduty , [I M B ] s t i l l w oul d fac e an i ns ur m ount abl e hur dl e – [f ai l ur e] t o r ai s e a genui ne i s s ue as t o a mat er i al fac tr egar di ng caus at i on. ” Id
. at*7. T he C our tr eas oned th a t:T h e D istric t C o u rt h a d d iv e rsityju risd ictio n p u rsu a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 3 2 . T h e re is 7 compl et e di ver s i tyof ci t i zens hi p betw een I M B / I nt erm ar i ne and TM M / T M A , and the a mo u n ti n c o n tr o v e r s ye x c e e d s $ 7 5 , 0 0 0 . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 . 13 [I M B ] ha[s ] notpr ovi ded anyevi dence thatw oul d s uppor ta conc l us i on that h a d [ TM M ] p r o mp t l yn o t i f i e d [ I M B] o f

th e Amd e r ma l a ws u i t , [ I M B] w oul d have a s s i s t ed i n t hei row n defe ns e, and thathad [I M B ] had the o p p o rtu n ityto a ss ist in th e ir o w n d e f e n se , [I M B ] w o u ld h a v e p re v a iled in the l aw s ui t [] . . . . [I M B ] ha[s ] notexpl ai ned w hat , i f any , eff or t s [they ] m ade t o part i ci pat e i n t hei row n defe ns e i n the s i x m onths betw een the ca l l fr om Ba rwi l , wh i c h a l l e g e d l yg a v e [ I M B] th e f i r s tn o t i f i c a t i o n o f

th e Amd e r ma l a w s u i t , a n d th e d a t e o f th e h e a r i n g i n T u r k e y. Id
. I I . D i s cus s i on 7 W e e x e rc is e p le n a ry re v ie w o v e r o rd e rs g ra n tin g s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. Laure n v. D eF la m in is , 480 F. 3d 259, 265- 66 ( 3d C i r . 2007)
. T hus , w e w i l l aff i r m the D i s tr i ct C our t ’ s or deri f ourr evi ew r evea l s thatther e i s no genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac tand that th e m o v in g p a rt yis e n title d to ju d g m e n t a s a m a tte r o f la w . I d. at266. I n det erm i ni ng
w h e th e r su m m a ryju d g m e n t is w a rra n ted , w e re v iew th e f a c ts in th e lig h t m o st f

a v o ra b le to th e n o n -m o v in g p a rt y , a n d d ra w a ll r e a s o n a b le f a c tu a l in f

e re n c e s in th e p a rt y ’s f

a v o r. I d. I n or dert o s us t ai n a ca us e of a ct i on fornegl i gence underN ew J er s eys t at e l aw , “a pl ai nt i ff mustpr ove fourcor e el ement s : ( 1) a dutyof ca r e, ( 2) a br eac h of thatduty , ( 3) pr oxi m at e ca us e, and ( 4) actual damages
. ” P ol z o v. C ount

y of Es s ex , 960 A . 2d 375, 384 (N .J. 2 0 0 8 ). A f

id u c iar yre latio n sh ip a rise s u n d e r N e w Je rse ylaw w h e n “ o n e p e rso n is14

undera dutyt o actfororgi ve advi ce f orthe bene fi tof anotheron m att er s w i thi n the
s cope of thei rr el at i ons hi p. ” McKelvey v. P i er ce , 8 0 0 A .2 d 8 4 0 , 8 5 9 (N .J . 2 0 0 2 ). A fi duci aryi s char ged w i th “a dutyof l oy al tyand a dutyt o exer ci s e r eas onabl e s ki l l and
c a re ” o n b e h a lf

o f th e p e rs o n to w h o s e b e n e f it th e f id u c ia ry a c ts . I

d. “ [ T ]h e f

id u c iar yis l i abl e forharm r es ul t i ng fr om a br eac h of the dut i es i m pos ed bythe exi s t ence of s uch a
r el at i ons hi p. ” I

d. W e agr ee w i th t he D i s tr i ctC our tthat , even i f TM M had a dutyt o not i fyI M B of th e A m d e rm a law su it, IM B h a s s til l f a iled to ra ise a g e n u in e iss u e o f f a c t w ith re g a rd to
c a u sa tio n b e c a u se th e lin k b e tw e e n T M M ’s f a ilu re to n o tifyIM B o f

th e A m d e rm a su it
a n d th e in

ju ry su f f e re d b yIM B is to o s p e c u la tiv e a n d a tte n u a te d
. See Ci t y of P hi ladel phi a v. B er et ta U
. S. A
. C or p. , 277 F. 3d 415, 423 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( “[A ] pl ai nt i ff
w ho cannotes t abl i s h s om e di r ectr el at i on betw een the i nj uryas s ert ed and the i nj ur i ous conductal l eged f

ai l s t o pl ead a keyel ementfores t abl i s hi ng pr oxi m at e ca us at i on, i ndepende ntof and i n addi t i on t o othertr adi t i onal el ement s of pr oxi m at e ca us e. ”) (q u o tatio n s a n d c itatio n s o m itt e d ). A c c o rd in g to IM B , it s in ju ryw a s c a u se d b yits
a tto rn e y s’ f

a ilu re to ra ise c e rta in p re lim in a ryd e f e n se s in th e T u rk ish law su it. H o w e v e r, it i s undi s put ed that , on J ul y30, 1998, I M B w as aw ar e of the I ndus tr i al B r i dge paym ent order and spec i fi cal l yrequest ed T M M t o ap po i nt an at t orneyt o assi sti n IM B ’s defe nse a n d th a t I M B d id n o t v o ic e a n yo b je c tio n to T u rg u t B a s a c ik b e in g a p p o in te d o n its b e h a lf
. M o re im p o rta n tly , IM B h a s o f f e re d n o e x p lan a tio n a s to h o w T M M ’s a lleg e d f a ilu re to15

n o ti fyIM B o f th e A m d erm a law su itca u sed B asa cik’s f ail u re to raise th e p reli m inary d e f e n s e s th a t w o u ld h a v e a lle g e d ly ch a n g e d th e o u tc o m e o f th e T u rk is h litig a tio n . T her e i s nothi ng fr om w hi ch a r eas onabl e j ur orcoul d i nferthat , had I M B l earned
o f th e A m d erm a law su it , IM B w o u ld h av e p roc ee d ed d iffe ren tl yin it s o w n d ef en se. IM B does notdenyr ece i vi ng a t el efa x fr om B arw i l on February17, 1999, i nform i ng i tthat

“ tw o c o u rt c a s e s w e re o p e n e d a g a in s t B a rw il ... in Is ta n b u l b yD a e w o o a n d C e n tr a n s ,” (A p p . at 2 6 2 -6 3 ,) o r th e f a c t th a t, on M a rc h 2 3 , 2 0 0 0 , In ter m a rin e se n t a te lef a x to T ra m p f a h rt, statin g “ w e d o n o t w ish to c o n tac t B a rw il fo r a n u p d a te a s w e d o n o t w ish to
a w a k e n a sle e p in g d o g ; h o w e v e r, w e w o u ld lik e th e T ra m p f a h rt’s c o rre sp o n d e n t in T u rke yto d iscreetlych ec k o u t th e status o f th is m att er.” (A p p . at 27 4 -76 . ) M o reo v er, IM B d id n o t en g a g e se p a ra te T u rk ish c o u n se l d u rin g th e six m o n th s b e tw e e n th e tim e it admi t s havi ng actual know l edge of the A m derm a l aw s ui ti n N ovember2002 and M ay27, 2 0 0 3 , w h e n th e T u rk is h c o u rt e n te re d ju d g m e n t a g a in s t I M B . I I I . C oncl usi on Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the or derof the D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant i ng s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t in f a v o r o f T M M .